He studies the territorial distribution of linguistic phenomena. How many languages ​​are there in the world? Interesting facts about languages. History of the emergence and development of linguistic geography in Europe. Basic concepts of this science

Plan:

Introduction

• 1 Interdisciplinary connections and characteristics
• 2 Specialization
• 3 History
Literature

Introduction

Linguistic geography- a branch of linguistics that studies issues of the territorial distribution of languages ​​and the spread of linguistic phenomena. Studies the geographies of linguistic phenomena (so-called isoglosses) at various levels. Multifunctional, it is both one of the sections of general linguistics, and more specific dialectography and dialectology. The main task of linguistics. geography - drawing up similar language maps.

1. Interdisciplinary connections and characteristics

Linguistic geography is closely related to areal linguistics. Transferring data on the characteristics of certain dialect formations to a geographic map showed that their distribution in the territory occupied by a language forms a complex interweaving of isoglosses (lines on a geographic map that limit the territory of distribution of a particular linguistic fact), and usually isoglosses of different phenomena characteristic of of this dialect do not coincide. However, without completely coinciding, individual isoglosses pass close to each other, forming so-called bundles of isoglosses, between which territories are distinguished, characterized by linguistic unity according to the phenomena of a given bundle and forming territorial dialects. The set of isoglosses in the territory (distribution of a given language, or “linguistic landscape”) is the object of study of linguistic geography.

The emergence and development of linguistic geography is associated with the mapping of dialect differences in languages ​​and the creation of dialectological atlases. Such atlases can be different: atlases of a certain territory, one language, a group of related languages, atlases covering territories in which languages ​​of different systems are located, etc.

Materials of linguistic geography make it possible to study the territory of distribution of a particular phenomenon related to any aspect of language. These can be questions of phonetics (and phonology), as well as questions of morphology, syntax, vocabulary (semantics) and even stylistics. It all depends on the specifics and volume of the atlas. Some atlases are aimed at studying the lexical aspects of the language, others - grammatical ones. The study of each individual linguistic fact first of all manifests itself in finding the zone of its distribution, then in interpreting the configuration of this zone.

The opportunity to draw material from a linguistic atlas on various aspects of the language being studied contributes to a deeper and more comprehensive development of theoretical and practical phonetics, grammar and vocabulary of a given language.

2. Specialization

Linguistic geography has several areas of specialization:

• interlingual, when the geography of linguistic borders between two languages, especially not closely related ones, is studied (for example, the Franco-German linguistic border in the Moselle, Lorraine and Alsace, which changed over the centuries; the Belgian linguistic border, officially enshrined in the mid-twentieth century; the Franco-German linguistic border in Switzerland (Röstigraben), etc.

• intralingual direction that studies the territorial distribution of certain grammatical, lexical, etc. elements in the dialects of a particular language or a group of closely related languages ​​that form a dialect continuum. In this case, lingu. geogr. is closely related to dialectography and dialectology.

3. History

L. began to develop relatively recently, from the middle of the 19th century. The impetus for its development was the work of linguists involved in the compilation of large national atlases.

Literature

• Trubetskoy N. S. Phonology and linguistic geography, Selected works on philology. - M., 1987;
• Nemirovsky M. Ya. Linguistic geography and its significance, “News of the Gorsky Pedagogical Institute”, vol. III, Vladikavkaz, 1926;
• Atlas of Russian folk dialects of the central regions east of Moscow. Ed. R.I. Avanesova. M., 1957;
• Borodina M. A. Linguistic geography in Romagna (educational and methodological manual for KSU students) Chisinau University, 1966;
• Edelman D.I. Basic issues of linguistic geography. M., 1968;
• Areal studies in linguistics and ethnography. Ed. M. A. Borodina. L., 1977;

download
This abstract is based on an article from Russian Wikipedia. Synchronization completed 07/11/11 12:46:11
Similar abstracts:

Linguistic geography originated in the 70-80s. 19th century, when facts of discrepancy between the boundaries of individual linguistic phenomena were discovered. In this regard, the idea arose of the absence of dialect boundaries, of the mixed nature of dialects, and hence the idea that dialects do not exist at all (P. Meyer, G. Paris). This idea aroused objections (G.I. Ascoli); the dispute could only be resolved through systematic mapping of linguistic phenomena. In 1876, in Germany, G. Wenner began collecting material to compile a linguistic atlas of the German language; the work was continued by F. Wrede, and in 1926 some of the maps were published. In France, J. Gilleron and E. Edmond created the “Linguistic Atlas of France”, which had a great influence on the development of Romanesque and European linguistic geography, followed by linguistic atlases appearing in Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Romania; Atlases of individual provinces and regions began to be published (for example, an atlas of cities in Northern Italy).

G. Schuchardt spoke out against the neogrammatical interpretation of sound laws in the very heyday of neogrammaticism in the article “On phonetic laws (against neogrammaticians)” (1885). His article led to a heated debate, after which neogrammarians were forced to introduce restrictions on the operation of phonetic laws. Schuchardt denied the absolute nature of the operation of phonetic laws, arguing that there are “sporadic phonetic changes.” “If I were forced to admit,” he wrote, “the concept of “immutability,” I would apply it rather to the fact of the existence of sporadic phonetic changes than to phonetic laws, since every phonetic change at a certain stage is sporadic. And if at all costs it is necessary to characterize these points of view in contrast to each other, then it is appropriate speak about absolute and relative patterns" (39, 308, Part I).

Schuchardt also opposed the possibility of dividing the history of a language into clearly demarcated chronological periods, and denied the existence of boundaries between individual dialects, dialects and languages. In his opinion, “local dialects, subdialects, dialects and languages ​​are absolutely conventional concepts,” since “there is not a single language free from crossings and alien elements.” He saw the main reason for linguistic changes in continuous linguistic crossings and mixtures of languages. In accordance with this thesis, Schuchardt put forward, instead of a genealogical classification of languages, the theory of “geographical alignment,” that is, the continuous transition of one language to another in accordance with their geographical location, noting the continuity of the language as a whole. Schuchardt, like the neogrammarists, considered language to be the product of a speaking individual, emphasizing that the social status, living conditions of an individual, his character, culture, age have a direct impact on language and form an individual style. He sees the “elementary” kinship of languages ​​in the common mental nature of people.

Schuchardt paid considerable attention to etymological, semasiological and other particular issues of linguistics. At the same time, he noted that linguists “must learn to find the general in the particular, and because of this, a correct understanding of some most important fact that plays a decisive role in linguistic science is much more important than an understanding of any particular form of the phenomenon "(39, 310, part 1). In his opinion, “every particular linguistics passes into the general, must be an integral part of it, and the higher general linguistics rises scientifically, the more decisively it will reject everything random and empirical” (39, 312, part I) . In the most careful analysis of particular issues, linguistics is obliged not to lose sight of the general, the most general. These provisions were directed against the empiricism of the neogrammarians.

During the same period, in Germany, Georg Wenker (1852-1911), in France, Jules Gillieron (1854-1926), based on Schuchardt’s “geographical alignment” and J. Schmidt’s “wave theory”, created linguistic geography, the origins of which were Baudouin de Courtenay and G. Ascoli. In 1876, Wenker sent out a questionnaire to teachers, to which ten years later he received 40 thousand responses. As a result of the processing of these questionnaires and the work of Wenker’s successor Ferdinand Wrede (1863-1934) in 1926-1932. A six-volume German dialectological atlas was published. It was devoted mainly to phonetics. The preparation of the dialectological atlas of France by J. Gilleron in collaboration with Edmond Edmond (1848-1926) began later than Venker, but his 12-volume edition was published much earlier - in 1902-1910. It mainly dealt with vocabulary issues. In contrast to Wenker's questionnaire method, the French dialectological atlas was prepared using a direct method: by accurately recording in phonetic transcription local responses to 639 questionnaire items.

Linguogeography for the first time showed the complexity of language in territorial and social relations. The thesis of “geographical variation” of Schuchardt’s language became obvious: the dialect arrays turned out to be not continuous, but with different areas of distribution of individual phenomena of speech - words, forms and sounds, the so-called isoglosses. For the first time, it was possible to associate the boundaries of isoglosses with reasons of a cultural and historical nature. Schuchardt's position that language is a continuum, continuity, also became obvious with the advent of linguistic geography. Schuchardt’s position that there are no unmixed languages ​​or unmixed speech was also confirmed: dialects constantly interact both with each other and with the written language.

Schuchardt considered the main reason for the development of language to be the mixing of languages: “Among all the problems that linguistics is currently dealing with, there is, perhaps, not one as important as the problem of linguistic mixing.” “There is not a single language that is free from crossings and foreign elements.” It is the mixing of languages ​​that leads to their change. Moreover, the reasons for this process are always social and not physiological in nature. The concept of mixing languages ​​attracted attention to the phenomenon of language contacts, to research in the field of bilingualism, dialectology, linguistic geography.

Developing Schmidt’s “wave theory,” Schuchardt proposes the idea of ​​“linguistic continuity,” which leads to the denial of the existence of strict boundaries between dialects, dialects and languages. “Local dialects, dialects and languages ​​are absolutely conventional concepts”, “geographical collective designations”. Thus, instead of a genealogical classification, a theory of geographical continuity, “geographical alignment” is proposed, i.e. continuous transitions from one language to another. As a result, the idea of ​​the kinship of all the languages ​​of the world arises: “I recognize that all the languages ​​of the world are related, but they are related not because of their pedigree, but only because this kinship was formed through the immediate, very broad participation of mixing and assimilation.” . In this regard, Schuchardt calls for the comparative study of unrelated languages, i.e. to typological research.

As noted by T.A. Amirova, “in the history of linguistics, Schuchardt occupies a special place as a critic of the old and herald of the new. His works, written at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, reflected, as in a mirror, the state of the contemporary science of language. Schuchardt’s works indicate the emergence of a new approach to language and the development of new methods for its description.”

The development of linguistic geography is associated with the distinction of dialects and the creation of dialectological atlases. Thus, linguistic geography deals with the study of the territorial distribution of linguistic phenomena.

From the school geography course, concepts such as “isotherm” (a line connecting areas with the same temperature), “isobar” (areas with the same pressure), etc. are known. By analogy, the concept of “isogloss” arose, i.e. a line connecting areas on the map in which one or another linguistic phenomenon is observed, for example, the same pronunciation of a sound or the same name of an object (phenomenon). The study of the nature of the distribution of isoglosses showed that their distribution in the territory occupied by the language forms a complex interweaving, while the isoglosses of different linguistic phenomena characteristic of a given dialect, as a rule, do not coincide. Passing close to each other, isoglosses form bunches, between which territories are distinguished that are characterized by unity in relation to the linguistic phenomenon under study. It is precisely such bundles of isoglosses that form territorial dialects.

The main concept of linguistic geography is “linguistic area”, i.e. boundaries of distribution of individual linguistic phenomena. In this case, three main zones are distinguished: central, marginal (lateral) and transitional, the relationships between which are characterized as follows: in the more isolated of the two areas, the earlier stage is preserved; the stage attested in lateral areas is usually earlier, provided that the central area is not more isolated; the larger of the two areas retains the earlier stage, provided that the smaller area is not more isolated and does not consist of lateral areas; If one of the two stages turns out to be obsolete or ready to disappear, then the more ancient stage usually disappears first.

Since the spread of linguistic phenomena occurs not only in space, but also in time, we can judge the relative antiquity of these phenomena.

The impetus for the widespread use of linguistic mapping methods was largely the lively scientific debate of that time about the existence of boundaries between individual dialects. The accumulated dialect material showed that the boundaries of individual dialect features often do not coincide with each other. This led to the incorrect idea that dialects do not exist as independent territorial units. The debate on this issue could only be resolved by systematic mapping of many individual linguistic phenomena. This situation ultimately led to the idea of ​​creating dialectological atlases as a collection of linguistic maps, each of which is devoted to a separate linguistic phenomenon. This idea is associated with the separation of linguistic geography into an independent discipline, the object of which is to establish the boundaries of the territorial distribution of linguistic phenomena.

However, mapping linguistic facts is not an end in itself. Their geographical distribution reflects the patterns of language development and is a source of data about the history and structural features of its territorial dialects. The territorial distribution of linguistic facts also reflects the fate of the native speakers themselves, the history of the people, cultural, political and socio-economic relations of the population in the past.

The tasks of linguistic geography as a science therefore go far beyond the scope of simple mapping, which only provides researchers with systematized and visually presented material on maps. The substantive side of this science is a comprehensive study of linguistic information contained in linguistic maps in connection with the data of the history of the language and the history of the people.

Since the end of the 19th century, dialectological atlases began to be created in many countries of the world. Among the first was the “Linguistic Atlas of France” (authors J. Gillieron and E. Edmond), which in 1903 began to be published in Paris.

With all the variety of approaches to mapping material in dialectological atlases of different languages, work on them is based on some general principles. The main ones are the following.

The collection of language material is carried out according to a program specially developed for the atlas. Rural settlements are all surveyed either, more often, on a more or less dense grid. The collection of material is carried out, as a rule, by persons with special linguistic training (from students to professors), through direct observations of dialects and recording the material in a single phonetic transcription. Sometimes a questionnaire method aimed at the rural intelligentsia is allowed. The material is collected in a relatively short time, since the synchronicity of the collected data is meant.

Each atlas map is usually based on material collected on a specific issue of the program. Therefore, the nature of the program questions largely determines the content of the cards. The programs themselves and methods of mapping in dialectological atlases of different languages ​​can vary significantly.

Linguistic atlases of individual languages ​​(or dialectological atlases) represent the structure of dialect systems at a certain point in time and provide a synchronous cross-section of the language in its territorial projection. Atlases contain invaluable material for solving a wide variety of problems in both synchronic and, first of all, historical linguistics. Therefore, the creation of a dialectological atlas is always a powerful impetus for further study of the language, determining the progress of national linguistics for many years.

In addition to atlases of individual national languages, atlases of a more specialized nature are also created, for example, atlases of individual regions of the distribution of a language outside the main territory of its existence, atlases devoted to narrow problems: phonetic, lexical with a detailed development of a certain range of semantic relations, atlases of the distribution of certain word formations models, etc.

In terms of the coverage of linguistic material, linguistic atlases can go beyond the dialects of one language and present on their maps data on the geography of linguistic phenomena on the scale of related languages, for example, the “Common Slavic Linguistic Atlas” or the “Atlas of Turkic Languages,” as well as non-Slavic languages. related ones, like the “Linguistic Atlas of Europe” or the “Carpathian Linguistic Atlas”. All of them are grandiose works demonstrating the fruitfulness of international cooperation in the field of science. Their importance is invaluable for the development of problems of the origin of languages, the history of interlingual contacts, as well as issues of typology in relation to languages ​​of varying degrees of proximity.

LINGUISTIC GEOGRAPHY(linguistic geography, geolinguistics), a branch of linguistics that studies the territorial distribution of languages ​​and linguistic phenomena (on the globe, on continents, within smaller geographic areas). The above definition is as broad as possible. Repeated attempts have been made to give the concept of “linguistic geography” a more specific meaning, as well as to contrast it with the close concept of “areal/spatial linguistics”, however, in this article these terms are not distinguished, and the concept of “linguistic geography” includes all aspects of the geographical distribution of languages ​​and linguistic phenomena.

Geographical factors are extremely important in explaining many linguistic phenomena. Thus, the type of geographic environment in which languages ​​are distributed fundamentally influences the nature of genetic connections between emerging languages ​​or dialects. A geographical environment with clearly defined boundaries (water barriers, mountains) often forms clear boundaries between languages ​​(cf. the Austronesian languages ​​of Oceania, distributed on individual islands). On the contrary, a geographical environment without obvious boundaries (plains, coasts) often leads to the emergence of so-called dialect chains, or continua, in which neighboring populations understand each other’s language well, but distant ones do not (this is how, for example, the Eskimo languages ​​of the Inuit group, widespread from the Bering Strait to Greenland). Geographical factors may explain the nature and rate of language change. For example, the grammatical conservatism of the Lithuanian language compared to its Indo-European relatives is often explained by the fact that Lithuanians lived for many centuries in a geographically isolated area, limiting contact with other languages. On the other hand, linguistic innovation can also be caused by geographical circumstances. In the Turkish language, in contrast to the Turkic languages ​​of more eastern areas, as a result of the influence of neighboring Iranian and, possibly, Semitic languages, the nature of polypredicative constructions has changed: instead of typically Turkic constructions with non-finite dependent verbs (i.e., inconjugated forms - such as the infinitive, verbal name, etc.) a complex sentence with a conjunction and a finite dependent verb has become widespread in Turkish. Another Turkic language, Gagauz, which acquired the word order “subject - predicate - object”, in contrast to the general Turkic word order “subject - object - predicate”, was subjected to an even more dramatic influence of the surrounding (Slavic and Romance) languages.

Observable commonalities between languages ​​are traditionally called isoglosses. Thus, we can say that isogloss “the basic word order “subject - predicate - object”” unites the Gagauz, Romanian and Bulgarian languages, but distinguishes them from Turkish.

Historically, linguistic geography grew out of the study of related, primarily Indo-European languages ​​( cm. INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES), as well as from dialectology. In the last quarter of the 19th century. Much evidence has accumulated that the discrete family tree model, applied both to languages ​​of the same family and to dialects of the same language, is too gross a simplification of reality. Along with common origins, geographic proximity is also a very important factor in the commonalities between languages ​​and dialects. H. Schuchardt and J. Schmidt proposed the so-called “wave theory” - the idea of ​​​​the spread of linguistic innovations from the centers where they arise to the periphery, like circles spreading across the water from a thrown stone and gradually fading. As a result of the mutual influence of adjacent languages ​​and dialects, the boundaries between them are not so clear, and similarities arise that cannot be explained by a common origin. Thus, within the framework of the Indo-European family, the Italic languages ​​(which primarily include Latin) are united in some ways with Celtic, in others with Germanic, in others with Greek, and these similarities in each case are not necessarily related to the common past of the languages ​​(the existence period of commonality of these particular groups of languages), but can be explained by later contacts based on territorial proximity. Thus, it is very difficult to decide with which branch of the Indo-European family the Italic languages ​​should be grouped first when creating an Indo-European family tree.

The formation of linguistic geography as an established direction is usually associated with dialectological atlases of the German and French languages, created respectively in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The books by A. Doza (1922) and E. Coseriu (1956) had a significant influence, each of which bore the title Linguistic geography. The Italian linguistic movement known as neolinguistics used the term “areal/spatial linguistics” (M. Bartoli, 1925, 1943). In Soviet linguistics, such authors as V.M. Zhirmunsky, E.A. Makaev, M.A. Borodina, D.I. Edelman, A.V. Desnitskaya, B.A. Serebrennikov wrote about the problems of linguistic geography.

The main concept of linguistic geography is linguistic area. We can talk about large and small areas. For example, sometimes the whole world is divided into three macro-areas - the Old World, the New World and Oceania. There are many options for more detailed divisions, up to the area of ​​distribution of the dialect of a particular language. In the works of the American linguist J. Nichols, important types of areas were indicated - the so-called extended (spread) and closed (residual) zones. Extended zones, usually represented on plains, are characterized by relatively low genetic diversity. Confined zones usually occur in geographically limited areas (bounded by mountains, oceans, etc.) and have a high level of diversity. Classic examples: for an extended zone - the Eurasian steppe, for a closed zone - the Caucasus.

Linguistic geography is of interest not only as an autonomous field of linguistics, but also (primarily) as a component of interdisciplinary linguistic research. From the very beginning of its emergence, linguistic geography is closely connected with such a classical linguistic discipline as comparative historical linguistics, or comparative studies. Linguistic geography was initially considered not only as a complement, but even as an alternative to comparative studies. Currently, these two areas interact fruitfully. The most important concept that arose relatively recently at the intersection of linguistic geography and genealogical linguistics is the genetic density of an area. This concept was originally proposed by R. Austerlitz (1980) and later developed by J. Nichols (1990, 1992). Genetic density of an area is the number of genetic families located in a particular area per unit area (for example, per million square kilometers). This is an extremely important characteristic in which different habitats differ in quite radical ways. Austerlitz's original observation was that America was characterized by a much larger number of language families than Eurasia, in a substantially smaller area. According to Nichols' quantitative data, the Old World has a genetic density of 1.5 and the New World has a genetic density of 10.6. Northern Eurasia has a density of 1.3, and a closed zone like California has a density of 34.1. The highest genetic density was observed in New Guinea - 88.8. Nichols's explanations for such differences are partly geographical: low latitudes, water barriers and mountains are factors favoring the emergence of small groups and therefore greater linguistic diversity.

Another area of ​​linguistics with which linguistic geography is closely related is linguistic typology. At the junction of these disciplines, the concept of a linguistic union arose. This term was proposed by N.S. Trubetskoy (1923) and denotes the acquired structural similarity of languages ​​distributed in adjacent territories and not necessarily closely related. A linguistic union implies the presence of not single, but multiple and significant similarities between languages. The most frequently cited example of a linguistic union is the Balkan, which includes the languages ​​of the Slavic, Romance, Greek and Albanian branches of the Indo-European family. Other examples are the Volga, Baltic, Caucasian language unions, etc. One of the most striking examples of a large linguistic union is the isolating and analytical languages ​​of Southeast Asia - this union unites languages ​​of at least four language families. The processes leading to the formation of linguistic unions are a special case of borrowing. Unlike ordinary lexical borrowings, in this case we are talking about grammatical borrowings that affect the entire structure of the language.

According to many scientists, “linguistic union” is too strong a term that imposes the idea of ​​​​the unshakable membership of languages ​​in such a union. In reality, there is usually a complex network of mutual influences of languages, sometimes limited to a couple of neighboring languages, and sometimes covering large areas. Therefore, they often prefer to talk about convergent zones (U. Weinreich) or linguistic areas (in the terminological sense, this phrase was used by M. Emeno). The study of South Asia (i.e. the Indian subcontinent) as a linguistic convergent area by K. Masika is widely known. In recent years, the same phenomenon - the convergence of adjacent languages ​​- is sometimes spoken of in terms of another, “chemical” metaphor: during language contacts, “diffusion” of grammatical phenomena from one language to another occurs. The concept of diffusion is more general than the concept of linguistic union. As a result of diffusion, after large intervals of time it may turn out that unrelated languages ​​of one area are typologically closer to each other than to related languages ​​located in other areas.

A fundamental question at the intersection of linguistic geography and typology is the distinction between parallel development in languages ​​as a result of diffusion vs. as a result of intralinguistic/universal/cognitive principles. For example, many Western European languages ​​have evolved from syntheticism to analyticism, and it is very plausible to explain this parallelism by interlingual influences. However, it cannot be ruled out that the possibility of such a development was already inherent in the archaic Indo-European language type - cf. a similar development occurs in a number of Iranian languages, as well as in Bulgarian.

The convergence of languages ​​on a territorial basis is in principle independent of the genetic relatedness of languages. Both related and unrelated languages ​​undergo convergence. However, convergence proceeds differently depending on the presence and degree of linguistic relatedness. In the case of closely related languages ​​or dialects that retain some degree of mutual intelligibility, particularly massive borrowing of vocabulary and grammatical features is possible - for example, this happened with the East Slavic Ukrainian language, which was significantly influenced by the West Slavic Polish language. In the case of distant kinship, which precludes mutual intelligibility, but preserves a certain typological similarity of languages, there is also the possibility of diffuse influences - for example, one of the constitutive features of the Balkan language union is considered to be the postpositive definite article (in the Bulgarian, Romanian and Albanian languages), developing from the demonstrative pronoun ( materially non-identical in different languages). Languages ​​that are generally not related to each other are also capable of convergence (cf. the already mentioned languages ​​of Southeast Asia and the Turkic languages ​​in Europe). Sometimes the type of grammatical structure prevents foreign language influences. For example, the verbal morphology of the Athabaskan languages ​​of North America is structured so uniquely that it excludes the possibility of borrowing not only grammatical models, but also verbal lexemes.

An extreme case of the influence of one language on another is the situation when one of the languages ​​completely replaces the second in a certain population. In this case, the disappeared language may leave some traces (the so-called substrate) in the “winning” language. For example, some features of the French language (in particular, the presence of a labial frontal phoneme) are often explained as a substrate of the Gaulish language (Celtic group).

Modern large-scale typological studies necessarily include a geographical component. This is due to the fact that typological generalizations regarding the languages ​​of the Earth as a whole can be based only on a correctly formed sample of languages. Modern samples, including several hundred languages, are created in such a way as to eliminate bias in favor of certain languages ​​- more well described, belonging to a particular language family, and also belonging to a particular area. For example, a valid sample should not overrepresent European languages; on the contrary, ideally the Papuan languages ​​of New Guinea should be represented to the same extent as European languages.

In the book by J. Nichols Linguistic diversity in time and space(1992) linguistic geography, comparative studies and typology are synthesized into a single field of linguistic research. Nichols distinguishes three types of stability: typological (one characteristic of a language predetermines another), historical (the same characteristic is common to languages ​​of the same genetic group) and areal (the same characteristic is manifested in unrelated languages ​​of a certain area). Particular areal stability is characterized by such morphosyntactic features as morphological complexity, vertex/dependent marking ( cm. POLYSYNTHETIC LANGUAGES) and word order, and the type of role encoding ( cm. CASE), on the contrary, is an areally variable characteristic. The areas differ in their typological homogeneity. High structural diversity is usually combined with high genetic density (especially in the Pacific and New World). Nichols provides evidence of the predominant grammatical types and categories for each area—for example, verb-final word order is dominant in New Guinea and eastern North America, while verb-initial order is the most common in Mesoamerica. Nichols describes three types of diachronic change that affect the diversity of a language population: increased diversity (New World), stabilization (Europe, central and southern Australia), and language extinction (under new waves of colonization). The resulting linguistic diversity is largely a function of geographical factors, particularly the size of the area. The study of the geographical distribution of linguistic diversity, according to Nichols, is a necessary prerequisite for a meaningful typology of languages ​​and the reconstruction of the earliest linguistic history of the Earth.

The last problem is very relevant in modern science. Linguists, archaeologists, geneticists are trying to restore the paths along which Homo sapiens spread across the globe. Understanding modern linguistic diversity is only possible in the context of the diachronic processes that led to this diversity. It is believed that the homeland of all hominid species is Africa, and at the same time modern Homo sapiens was the first species to spread beyond the Old World. About 50–90 thousand years ago, modern humans settled in Asia, New Guinea and Australia, 40 thousand years ago in Europe, and at least 20 thousand years ago in America. The issue of settling America is especially actively discussed. It is accepted that the settlement of North America came from Asia, most likely as a result of population migration along the Pacific coast. Most modern researchers consider the most realistic hypothesis to be that the settlement of South America occurred exclusively from North America, i.e. ultimately from Asia.

Linguistic geography has many points of intersection with another linguistic discipline - sociolinguistics. Firstly, the influence of one language on another does not necessarily have a geographical basis (i.e. the contiguity of the territories in which these languages ​​are spoken). For example, the Russian language was influenced by Old Church Slavonic, German, and French, but Russian territory did not border on any of the immediate areas of distribution of these languages. In all cases, the influence was caused by the high social prestige of the corresponding language and/or its speakers who came to the territory of Russia. Currently, the English language influences most of the world's languages, and this is not due to, but despite, geographical circumstances. In any case, linguistic influences do not occur directly between languages, but through the consciousness of the people speaking them. One of the main mechanisms of interlingual influences is bilingualism.

Secondly, despite geographical circumstances, the unity of a language or dialect can be observed (the absence of further dialect fragmentation). Despite the geographical dispersion of speaker groups, considerable homogeneity is described for the dialect of Yiddish that was widespread in German-speaking countries, as well as for the modern dialect of Black Americans (Black English), characteristic of much of the United States. In these cases, socio-ethnic proximity of groups of speakers turned out to be a stronger factor than geographic distance. Thus, geographic contiguity/separation is only one of the factors influencing language contact and language change.

The practical side of linguistic geography is the creation of maps and atlases, one way or another related to languages ​​and linguistic phenomena. Linguistic geography as a theoretical discipline should not be identified with linguistic cartography. There are many types of linguistic mapping, but two are the most common. Firstly, these are maps showing the spread of languages; in particular, since 1999, volumes of the publication have been equipped with such maps Languages ​​of the world, dedicated to individual families or groups of languages. Secondly, these are maps of the territorial distribution of linguistic phenomena. On such maps, isoglosses are indicated using one or another graphical means.

The most famous early atlases, with which the emergence of linguogeography as a discipline is often associated, is the atlas of German dialects, begun by G. Wenker in 1876, but published only in the 20th century, as well as the atlas of French dialects by J. Gilleron and E. Edmond (1902– 1910), consisting of 1920 cards. In these dialectological dictionaries, the subject of description is the geography of distribution of individual words. Somewhat later, similar initiatives were undertaken in other countries, including Russia (on the initiative of A.A. Shakhmatov). In 1915, the first dialectological map of the European part of Russia was published (N.N. Durnovo, N.N. Sokolov, D.N. Ushakov). In Soviet times, R.I. Avanesov led the work on the creation of several dialectological atlases of the Russian language. Since 1958, work began on Common Slavic linguistic atlas. This project then became part of Atlas of European languages.

Atlas of European languages is a project that was started around 1970 with the participation of linguists from all European countries. From 1983 to 1997, five issues of commentary maps were published. The maps reflect the geographical distribution of individual concepts, for example, PEAR, RAINBOW, CHRISTMAS, etc. in hundreds of different dialects of European languages. This atlas continues, in a slightly modified form, the tradition of dialectological atlases of individual languages. Most maps characterize either the etymologies of the roots corresponding to a given concept in European languages ​​and dialects, or the lexical motivations of the designations encountered; on cards of the latter type, for example, Russian. Christmas and French Noel reflected as similar conceptualizations based on the idea of ​​birth, and English. Christmas and German Weihnachten represent other types. However, there are also individual cards dedicated to more general linguistic phenomena, for example, the grammatical way of expressing meaning it's raining.

In the late 1980s, the European Union began funding EUROTYP, a project whose goal was the grammatical, typologically oriented study of the languages ​​of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. At present, several works have already been published devoted to individual problems (word order, aspectual-temporal categories, adverbial constructions, clitics, etc.).

In 1996, a very special linguistic atlas was published - Atlas of languages ​​of intercultural communication in the Pacific region, Asia and America(edited by S. Wurm et al.). This is a collection of several hundred maps showing the territorial distribution of contact languages ​​as well as related languages. Each map is accompanied by an article describing the linguistic situation in the region.

Currently at the Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology. M.Planck in Leipzig preparing Atlas of linguistic structures of the world, the purpose of which is to display on maps a variety of typologically significant isoglosses. Individual maps will display over a hundred parameters, such as the size of the vowel inventory; analytical/synthetic/polysynthetic type of expression of grammatical meanings; basic word order; type of relativization marker; type of role encoding, etc.

Andrey Kibrik

Lyudmila Gruzberg

Linguistic geography

Lyudmila Gruzberg

Linguistic geography

The publication, which is written in the genre of vocabulary entry in the encyclopedic dictionary,

is about linguistic geography (LG), its approaches, achievements and opportunities.

A brief review on new works in LG is presented.

LG - “a branch of linguistics that studies

territorial distribution

linguistic phenomena."

(Linguistic encyclopedic

LG - “a branch of linguistics that studies questions

territorial distribution of languages ​​and

linguistic phenomena (on the globe, on

continents, within smaller

geographical areas).

Linguistic geography (LG) has a dignified and calm biography.

It is believed that LG as an independent scientific discipline took shape at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries, growing out of studies of related, primarily Indo-European, languages. The need to resolve the issue of the boundaries of languages ​​and dialects led to the idea of ​​mapping linguistic phenomena, and the first linguistic maps became the basis for future linguistic atlases.

In 1876, G. Wenker, a teacher from Düsseldorf, sent questionnaires around the country to study German dialects and create a language atlas. This work was continued by the school of F. Wrede, and in 1926 the Atlas was published (German Language Atlas, 1876-1926). In 1902-1910 J. Gilleron and E. Edmond created the “Linguistic Atlas of France”, which had a great influence on the development of all European linguistics and became world famous.

The development of LH in Russia is based on the traditions of Russian dialectology. In 1903, on the initiative of Academician A.A. Shakhmatov, the Moscow Dialectological Commission (MDC) was created, which published in 1915 “The experience of a dialectological map of the Russian language in Europe.” This was the first experience in mapping the dialects of the East Slavic languages, where a classification of these dialects was proposed and the boundaries of the dialect division of the Russian language were presented.

As the status of LG was established, its conceptual apparatus was also formed. The basic concepts of LH are range(linguistic or dialect) and isogloss. The term area is used to designate 1) the boundaries of the distribution of a linguistic or dialect phenomenon or sets of similar phenomena (for example, Yakanya habitat); 2) the boundaries of the distribution of languages ​​or groups of related languages ​​( Slavic area, Turkic area etc.).

Isogloss is a line on a geographical map that limits the area of ​​distribution of a particular linguistic/dialect phenomenon.

For example, this is what a world map looks like, showing the areas of the largest language groups:

And these are isoglosses on the map of Russian dialects:

To date, dozens of linguistic atlases have been compiled (or are in the works) on many languages ​​and dialects of the world. Let's name just a few of them:

Linguistic Atlas of Europe;

Common Slavic linguistic atlas;

New UNESCO Atlas of Languages;

Dialectological atlas of the Russian language;

Atlas of the world's languages ​​Structure;

Bulgarian linguistic atlas;

The Spanish Language of New Mexico and Southern Colorado: A

Linguistic Atlas;

Linguistic atlas of German dialects in Altai - and many different others.

Undoubtedly, if linguistic atlases are compiled, it means that someone needs linguistic geography... In other words, what good service has LG served (or will serve) the science of language, scientific knowledge in general, and simply an inquisitive person?

Let's start with the fact that the use of mapping linguistic phenomena has helped in solving a number of problems in linguistics, led to the discovery of new facts and information and, as a result, to new discoveries. Today it is indisputably recognized that geographical factors are extremely important in explaining many linguistic phenomena. Thus, the type of geographical environment in which languages ​​live fundamentally influences the nature of genetic connections between emerging languages ​​or dialects. A geographical environment with clearly defined boundaries (water barriers, mountains) often forms clear boundaries between languages ​​(cf. the languages ​​of Oceania, distributed on individual islands). On the contrary, geographic environments without clear landscape boundaries (plains, coasts) often lead to the emergence of so-called dialect chains, or continua, in which neighboring populations understand each other's language well, but distant ones do not (an example is the Eskimo languages ​​distributed from the Bering Strait to Greenland).

Geographical factors may explain the nature and rate of language change. For example, the grammatical conservatism of the Lithuanian language compared to its Indo-European relatives is often explained by the fact that Lithuanians lived for many centuries in a geographically isolated area, limiting contact with other languages.

The landscape features in the territory where the Mordovian language was spoken led to the emergence of two noticeably different language variants - Mordvinian Erzya and Mordvinian Moksha (Note that Wikipedia does not even talk about variants of the Mordvinian language, but about two languages- Moksha and Erzya).

The territory factor plays a significant role in the convergence of languages. Once in close territorial proximity, even unrelated languages ​​undergo convergence.

Thus, being completely different genetically, Finnish and Swedish show undoubted similarities in phonetics and vocabulary.

Linguistic geography is an important component of interdisciplinary linguistic research. Since its inception, it has been closely connected with such a classical linguistic discipline as comparative historical linguistics. And now these areas are interacting fruitfully. The most important concept that arose relatively recently (80s - 90s of the twentieth century) at the intersection of linguistic geography and comparative studies is - genetic density of the area. The development of this concept is associated with the activities of American linguists R. Austerlitz and J. Nichols.

Genetic density of the area measured by the number of language families per unit area (for example, per million square kilometers). This is an extremely important characteristic in which habitats differ radically. R. Austerlitz argues that America is characterized by a significantly larger number of language families than Eurasia, despite the latter having a significantly smaller area.

According to J. Nichols, small closed areas are characterized by high genetic density, while extended ones are characterized by low genetic density. The Old World has a genetic density of 1.5, and the New World has a genetic density of 10.6. Northern Eurasia has a density of 1.3, and a closed area like California has a density of 34.1. And the highest genetic density was noted in New Guinea - 88.8. According to Nichols, low latitudes, water barriers and mountains contribute to the formation of small population groups and, therefore, greater linguistic diversity.

Linguistic geography can provide reliable materials for the study of interlingual contacts. A brilliant embodiment and confirmation of these possibilities of LG are, for example, many works of the outstanding Soviet linguist V.I. Abaev, in particular his work “Scytho-European isoglosses”.

We would like to talk on these pages about the (still) student work of one of the regular authors of the Philologist magazine - A. Gruzberg. His article “I would like to remember teachers...” was published in the 12th issue of the magazine. The following fragment of the said article deals with the student years of A. Gruzberg and his course work, which was supervised by Associate Professor of Perm University F.L. Skitova:

“Franziska Leontyevna said that in Perm dialects there is an unusual syntactic construction: the nominative case of nouns in quantitative-nominal combinations and in combinations with negation No(for example, “a bag of flour” or “no water”). I was asked first of all to collect material<…>. When I compiled a card index, it turned out that such structures are distributed very unevenly throughout the Perm region.

I shared this observation with Franziska Leontievna, and she said: “Let’s turn to linguistic geography.” I took a map of the region, plotted on it all the cases of using “my” constructions and got the following picture: the phenomenon occurs in the north-western and western regions of the region, and the closer to the north-west, the more. There are especially many in the Vereshchaginsky, Karagaysky, Chermozsky districts and in the Russian dialects of the Komi district ... "

The work suggested that the structure under study was formed under the influence of the languages ​​of the Finno-Ugric group - Komi-Permyak and Udmurt. Until this moment, such constructions had not been described in the scientific literature, which means there was no way to verify the correctness/incorrectness of the stated hypothesis.

But a few years later, says A.A. Gruzberg, “in a collection, in my opinion, the Glazov Pedagogical Institute published an article about this very phenomenon, where the author proved the borrowing of this construction from the Finno-Ugric languages ​​and wrote that he was exploring this construction for the first time in Russian dialectology" ...

Finally, it must be said that the LG tools are often used by other linguistic disciplines, trends and directions - psycholinguistics, cognitive linguistics, cultural linguistics.

Thus, starting to study the concept of RUSSIA in the Russian linguistic picture of the world, Professor K.I. Belousov (Orenburg-Perm) and his students conducted the following experiment in various classrooms of native speakers. A group of respondents was asked to draw a map of Russia (based on their own knowledge and ideas) and mark on it a) the most important, from their point of view, geographical objects, b) the countries with which Russia borders. Near all objects mapped, write down your own associations and/or ideas associated with these objects.

This is what one of the maps made by students looks like:

Further, in line with linguoculturology (where psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic components are organically intertwined), we examined the hierarchy of factors that determined the choice of certain geographical objects.

It turned out to be the most effective small homeland factor, which manifested itself primarily in the following:

1. Places where a person was born, grew up, studied or is studying are shown on maps. Wed: Perm - hometown; this is where we live; native favorite city; I study and live; my city; the city where we study, - and so on. Krasnovishersk - my small homeland. Krasnokamsk - I lived there. 100% of respondents indicated their place of birth.

2. As a rule, objects located in relative proximity to the place of birth and/or that are especially significant for the native region are indicated. Thus, 95% of respondents mapped the Ural Mountains, and 90% - the Kama River. Comments on this kind of objects are also indicative: the Ural Mountains - we live near them; old and dear; I am proud that this is the border between Europe and Asia; the most beautiful, especially in the north. Kama - I love it very much; our river; The Volga flows into the Kama, and not vice versa.

3. The territory of the small homeland is filled quite “densely”. In the entire space of Siberia, for example, 3-4 objects can be designated, and in the Perm Territory up to 11 objects. On the native territory, not only large, but also micro-objects are indicated. So, on one of the maps, in addition to Perm, Yurla, Yolkino (near Kungur), Yugokamsk, Solikamsk, Ust-Kachka, and the Perm-Ekaterinburg railway are shown. On another map, in addition to the informant’s native Krasnovishersk, the Vishera River, the mountain peaks Polyud and Vetlan, the village of Mutikha and the small river Akchim are indicated. The examples can be continued. Detailing also concerns the isolation of certain sub-objects within a large object, for example, Perm - PGU(as indicated on the map) , Zakamsk, Kama, embankment, Balatovo.

4. In our opinion, the action of the small homeland factor also determines the endowment of the applied objects with enthusiastic characteristics: Yolkino - wonderful nature; Cherdyn is a wonderful ancient city, very, very beautiful; Kungur Ice Cave - one of the most beautiful places in the world- and so on.

We emphasize that the opposition does not work in the sphere of action of the small homeland factor one's own - someone else's, about which - below.

Beyond the scope small homeland factor the most significant (i.e., most noticeably influencing the completion of the map) is ego factor(we don’t insist on terminology). The effect of this factor is found, in particular, in the following:

1. Places where the informant has visited are described in a special way, fundamentally different from places where he has not been. Thus, on one of the maps the travel route is drawn (“ with parents by car") from Perm to Krasnodar and shows Kazan, Samara, Saratov, Volgograd, Rostov-on-Don and Krasnodar - these cities are not marked on most other maps.